Faith's Participation in EvC

Bertheault's experiment does deal with fossils as well as sediments, of course, no way to avoid it as the fossils are embedded in the sediments. Perfectly relevant, and it does show that there is another reason for the fossil ordering that evos don't take into account; and so does pointing out the marine life at the bottom of the column. Sorry I didn't mention that of course marine life continues up the column too, which is quite consistent with the Flood scenario as everything was underwater with the marine creatures. Finding land life in the lower levels is what would be less likely in a flood.

quote:

---

So in other words, you guys never could prove and never have proved or verified that mutations do add genetic material at a rate sufficient to replace that which is lost due to variation. You just asserted a theory that mutations do add genetic material sufficient, and this is evo dogma but evidently never backed up, and a non-scientist has come up with an idea that shows the lack of objective verification of a basic theory and dogma held by evo scientists?

​

And yet, you bash her?

---

i.e. since the evidence availabnel to the group is insufficient to resolve the issue we must go with the creationist side. Even if the creationist idea relies on further assumptions. Well why should we ? Why not just admit that Faith failed to make her case and that this argument is a wash.

It's your theory. If you or evo scientists have not considered the issue and shown that Faith's idea is wrong, then they clearly have not properly substantiated their claims. I mean heck yea, you have to substantiate your claims on the theory.Show me where evos have done studies on genetic loss in variation and how mutations are at a rate and of the type to overcome that. You can't.Now, Faith is a non-scientist and so cannot do the work herself. JAD linked to scientists that did show the same point by the way in published works, but really, it's your claim. You guys claim microevolution adds up to macroevolution, but you do not and cannot substantiate that by ignoring what actually occurs in the process.

So true. So odd they never noticed it. That's strong evidence that they are operating in a fantasy world. Or, really, they do notice it but only in compartmentalized areas, and then immediately rationalize it away -- because of their complete and total faith in the theory. They notice it when creatures are on the verge of extinction from genetic depletion, for instance, and conservationists have to find ways to help them survive, and breeders have to take it into account because their normal methods of getting fantastic new types produce various forms of disease. But it never penetrates their thinking about the ToE itself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What the heck? Isn't evolutionary theory suppossed to be science. If one of the basic claims at the heart of evo theory cannot yet be supported, or as you say it, is insufficient, then heck yea, the right answer is to say it shouldn't be accepted as accurate until it is verified, and that you evos need to moderate your stance and work on developing it before spouting it as factual, as you do.Now, does this prove creationism?No. It just proves that a major plank in evolutionary theory that you guys claim is an observed fact, that microevolution is simply small macroevolutionary steps, is an entirely bogus claim on your guys part. It is not a fact. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and the fact evos won't recognize this shows the basic unscientific and non-objective approach they have to the subject.

quote:

---

Bertheault's experiment does deal with fossils as well as sediments, of course, no way to avoid it as the fossils are embedded in the sediments.

---

That's completely wrong. The creatures which became fossilised will have different hydrodynamic properties from the particles of sediment. Berthault's experiments didn't even attempt to address fossils.

quote:

---

Perfectly relevant, and it does show that there is another reason for the fossil ordering that evos don't take into account; and so does pointing out the marine life at the bottom of the column

---

Hydrodynamic sorting doesn't work - and that's the only thing relevant to Berthault that you could appeal to.Pointing out the marine life at the bottom of the column doesn't explain anything - why is it so different from modern marine life. Why the changes in marine life seen up through the column ? Why the changes in land life ? YOu know that that argument utterly fails yet you still claim that it works.

quote:

---

It's your theory. If you or evo scientists have not considered the issue and shown that Faith's idea is wrong, then they clearly have not properly substantiated their claims. I mean heck yea, you have to substantiate your claims on the theory.

---

So does Faith. She didn't. Why not admit that ?

You're making great points, Randman, but they will go unrecognized and perhaps we'll both be suspended -- at least declared off topic. In any case I won't find out until tomorrow as I have to get some sleep.

Please stop the Off Topic chatter. I take responsibility for sparking it. Let's keep on topic. Faith you should know better.

Because the Flood made many creatures extinct. The fossil record is really a graveyard of pre-Flood forms of life. I didn't claim absolute perfection for my arguments, Paul, I claimed that they are very good answers to the evo claims and they are. The changes just reflect the differential deposition of different types of life. We've been over this a zillion times. I'm going to bed.

And don't hang out here much anyway, but it flat out amazes me the denial of basic facts and logic on the evo side here. If evos cannot show demonstrably that mutations can overcome the normal loss of genetic material in variation and microevolution, then heck, the whole claim of random mutations and microevolution adding up to macroevolution is just total, unsubstantiated crap.The whole doggone community should be embarassed to actually claim "evolution is observed" and needs to admit that Darwin's basic concepts and their basic concepts that microevolution is macroevolution is merely an untested, and moreover, a highly unlikely hypothesis, perpetuated as a fact in a unscientific manner; a manner that is intellectually unscientific, unempirical, and non-objective.

I made the mistake of providing a diversion for you to escape the question at hand.Is any premise, substantiated or not, make a valid basis to discuss science. Is Hopi Creationism just as valid as Biblical Creationism?Edited by troxelso, : added question mark

She did substantiate it as far as she could, discussing well-known processes leading to a loss of genetic diversity. You guys claim mutations can overcome that, but you offer nothing to prove that. It appears in fact that the scientific community has not addressed this, though I could be wrong, and yet you with a straight face claim microevolution is macroevolution.I mean what the heck? Can't you see that asserting something as factual when in reality it is an untested hypothesis borders on a fraudulent claim, and if not fraudulent, at least ignorant.What has been proven is observed microevolutionary processes decrease genetic diversity in the long run, correct? You claim mutations can overcome this, but this is really wishful thinking on your part. You cannot show this. What we observe thus far contradicts what you assert, and yet you guys still assert natural selection is macroevolution in action. That's totally unsubstantiated, by your own admission. It's not even a "theory" as it has not been tested. It's a hypothesis. it's definitely not a fact as you guys claim.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Randman stop it!!!! You are abusing this board.If you are so darn sure of your position package your position logically, refain from statements such as "god said so it is so" and submit it as topic. I am sure you will blow away the evos.

When have I ever said this on an evo thread? You suggest I not only do this, but do so frequently or that's how I read it.Edited by randman, : No reason given.